I care about as much for the opinion of the head of the patent examiner's office right now like a fart in in a tornado.

Especially since he "...served in a variety of roles before taking his last position at IBM, including intellectual property law attorney in IBM's Storage Division and Litigation group, IP Law Counsel in IBM's Software Group, assistant general counsel for IBM Asia/Pacific, IBM Corporate Counsel and assistant general counsel. Kappos served on the Board of Directors of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owners Association, and the International Intellectual Property Society." Link

The article claims that the cost of owning and litigating a patent became more expensive than the benefit of owning a patent in the 1990s. If that is the case then why do all of the companies still play the patent game? Why hasn't Apple or Google gone the trade secret route? That statement doesn't seem right to me.

nmrsnr:The article claims that the cost of owning and litigating a patent became more expensive than the benefit of owning a patent in the 1990s. If that is the case then why do all of the companies still play the patent game? Why hasn't Apple or Google gone the trade secret route? That statement doesn't seem right to me.

The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating. At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled. There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past. There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.

Evil Twin Skippy:The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

This isn't correct. Patents don't cost any more to hold now than they did in the '90s, beyond some very minor increases in maintenance fees to keep pace with inflation. You certainly don't litigators to hold a patent.Now, to enforce a patent, you need some litigators, and yes, a couple guys in a garage can't really afford to front that cost... if only there were things like law firm contingency fees, or patent brokers, or lawsuit investors, or other such ways to pay for litigation, but since you have to pay every penny up front, I guess a tiny company like i4i can never afford to sue a giant company like Microsoft.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating.

That's not the intent of the patent system at all. It's all about encouraging public disclosure of inventions by eliminating the disincentives that encourage companies to keep trade secrets. And that's the same for small inventors and big industrialists.

At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

... and? Who's going to spend half a million dollars to sue a guy making $50k from products he builds in his garage? Patent damages aren't punitive... the most you can get are 100% royalties, and in reality, you're going to be closer to 1%. Is DuPont really going to send a lawyer after you for $500? And, at that point, wouldn't you just pay it for a full license, knowing that they can't ever come after you again?

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"6 months.A year.How much are you willing to spend to keep spreading this FUD?

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled.

Why should one industry be exempt from patentability, even for the most novel and nonobvious invention in the world?

There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past.

Bet you don't know what that reason is, or why it doesn't apply anymore.

There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.

What you don't realize is that the exact same argument has come up dozens of times in the past - airplanes are invented, and someone says "the entire airplane patent system needs to be dismantled." Television is invented, and someone says "the entire broadcasting patent system needs to be dismantled." Assembly line automation is invented, and someone says "the entire mechanical patent system needs to be dismantled." Why should computers be magically exempt?

He noted that during a time of growing litigation in the smartphone industry, "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken," he said.

That right there is why it's broken you jackass....

"Our patent system is the envy of the world," Kappos said.

No, it's the laughing stock of the world as it currently functions. When it was first introduced, it was the envy.

Yes, we DO need qa patent system. I think we need to make it harder to get a patent for as much protection that it gives. And make it so ONLY individuals can own them, not corporations. And that they can't be transferred easily. With mandatory mediation before lawsuits. Removal of all software patents. This 'obvious idea that is in no way novel' and sticking 'on a computer/smartphone' (I'm looking at you, slide-to-unlock), needs to stop.

Theaetetus:Evil Twin Skippy: The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

This isn't correct. Patents don't cost any more to hold now than they did in the '90s, beyond some very minor increases in maintenance fees to keep pace with inflation. You certainly don't litigators to hold a patent.Now, to enforce a patent, you need some litigators, and yes, a couple guys in a garage can't really afford to front that cost... if only there were things like law firm contingency fees, or patent brokers, or lawsuit investors, or other such ways to pay for litigation, but since you have to pay every penny up front, I guess a tiny company like i4i can never afford to sue a giant company like Microsoft.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating.

That's not the intent of the patent system at all. It's all about encouraging public disclosure of inventions by eliminating the disincentives that encourage companies to keep trade secrets. And that's the same for small inventors and big industrialists.

At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

... and? Who's going to spend half a million dollars to sue a guy making $50k from products he builds in his garage? Patent damages aren't punitive... the most you can get are 100% royalties, and in reality, you're going to be closer to 1%. Is DuPont really going to send a lawyer after you for $500? And, at that point, wouldn't you ...

Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

No, you don't. Calling a government official "bribed" when you believe they're accepting money to espouse a position isn't a metaphor.

Considering the revolving door between IP intensive industries and the governments that enforce it, I'd say there's a fair amount of legal bribery going on. Or are you espousing the position that the USPTO and related committees is free of regulatory capture? Or do I need to start grabbing names?

Evil Twin Skippy:nmrsnr: The article claims that the cost of owning and litigating a patent became more expensive than the benefit of owning a patent in the 1990s. If that is the case then why do all of the companies still play the patent game? Why hasn't Apple or Google gone the trade secret route? That statement doesn't seem right to me.

The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating. At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled. There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past. There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.

I kind of see your point on barrier to entry, but I think the bigger problem is the speed of technology vs. the lifetime of the patent. Think back to the late 19th century, the first internal combustion engine that we'd recognize as essentially a car engine was invented around 1860. Nobody would question their right to patent the 4 stroke engine, but by the time Ford got around to mass producing them around 1900 any patent on a basic internal combustion engine would have well expired. Whereas today the analogy would be the guys invent he 4 stroke engine and now Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, etc. all have to license their hybrid cars to them because while technology has progressed leaps and bounds, the patent hasn't expired yet on the all-encompassing base patent.

tgambitg:Yes, we DO need qa patent system... Removal of all software patents.

Why the inconsistency?

This 'obvious idea that is in no way novel' and sticking 'on a computer/smartphone' (I'm looking at you, slide-to-unlock), needs to stop.

Here's the first claim from 8,046,721:1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; andunlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

Do you see "[known method] on a computer/smartphone" there? Maybe you need to look a little closer at slide-to-unlock.

No, you don't. Calling a government official "bribed" when you believe they're accepting money to espouse a position isn't a metaphor.

Considering the revolving door between IP intensive industries and the governments that enforce it, I'd say there's a fair amount of legal bribery going on. Or are you espousing the position that the USPTO and related committees is free of regulatory capture? Or do I need to start grabbing names?

I've stopped trying to argue things with Fark's resident Patent Lawyer. He either refuses to see the problem or can't because he's blinded by the very system he works for. The fact that there are serious problems with the system, and it only encourages those with deep pockets that line the pockets of the very people who created the problems, is foreign to him. Patent law is necessary, yes, but it was never intended to be a bludgeon to use on your competition.

Theaetetus:tgambitg: Yes, we DO need qa patent system... Removal of all software patents.

Why the inconsistency?

This 'obvious idea that is in no way novel' and sticking 'on a computer/smartphone' (I'm looking at you, slide-to-unlock), needs to stop.

Here's the first claim from 8,046,721:1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; andunlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

Do you see "[known method] on a computer/smartphone" there? Maybe you need to look a little closer at slide-to-unlock.

Imagine the little nub as the 'unlock image'... You maintain continuous contact with it, you interact with it to unlock, and you move it from a first predefined location, to a predefined unlock region.

Take out the words electronic device, and touch sensitive, and it's the same damn thing.

Kinek:Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.

Evil Twin Skippy:nmrsnr: The article claims that the cost of owning and litigating a patent became more expensive than the benefit of owning a patent in the 1990s. If that is the case then why do all of the companies still play the patent game? Why hasn't Apple or Google gone the trade secret route? That statement doesn't seem right to me.

The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating. At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled. There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past. There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.

You think that's ridiculous? There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 20th century and simply add "ON PHONES!"

tgambitg:He either refuses to see the problem or can't because he's blinded by the very system he works for. The fact that there are serious problems with the system, and it only encourages those with deep pockets that line the pockets of the very people who created the problems, is foreign to him.

On the contrary, anyone who actually bothers having a discussion with me without sticking their fingers in their ears will find that I'm one of the first people to say that there are problems with the system. In fact, I've proposed several potential reforms in these threads. To claim that the concept is "foreign" to me is to admit that you've never actually listened to anything I've said, and only impugns your own credibility.

Imagine the little nub as the 'unlock image'... You maintain continuous contact with it, you interact with it to unlock, and you move it from a first predefined location, to a predefined unlock region.

Take out the words electronic device, and touch sensitive, and it's the same damn thing.

Except that, as you admit, you have to change a bunch of words, remove a bunch of other words, ignore a bunch of limitations in the claim, and eventually, you manage to remove everything that's in the patent... But at that point, it's the same damn thing?

Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Here's the claim, and with what you just removed crossed out:1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; andunlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

Or:1. A method of unlocking a device, the method comprising:a contact at a first predefined location;continuously moving the contact; andunlocking the device.

Now, that actually does describe a physical latch pretty well. And if that's all Apple claimed, then the latch would anticipate it. However, you're ignoring 95% of the limitations in the claim, and unless you can show that those limitations are known in the art, then all you've said is "Apple patented a latch plus a bunch of novel and nonobvious processes," in which case, good for them.

Theaetetus:Except that, as you admit, you have to change a bunch of words, remove a bunch of other words, ignore a bunch of limitations in the claim, and eventually, you manage to remove everything that's in the patent... But at that point, it's the same damn thing?

You really are clueless to what everyone is trying to say, aren't you? All that stuff I took out was the 'on the electronic device' stuff. And all of that is software based. Copyright the code that does it, but it should never have been eligible for a patent. It literally copies a physical slide lock in digital form. You're getting hung up on the legalese that tells you 'oh this isn't a physical lock, see all this stuff? it means a software lock so it can't be the same as the physical lock.'

"innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken,"

Dude...dude....dude....stop making excuses and having your panties in a wad that people are criticizing your field. The system is broken as far as software is concerned. Patents are not the right way to handle software and software-based devices. We need a new system, some whole new legal concept. Patents were an early constitutional amendment. Shouldn't someone stop to think that a concept from the 1780s is maaaaaaybe out of date?

Issues like Samsung tablets v Apple tablets are hilariously retarded. The device is the tip of the iceberg. Inside that device is hundreds of thousands if not millions of labor hours to produce reams of software. Patents cannot handle this and will not ever be able to handle this. As spoken by Kappos himself as he logically contradicts himself.

Theaetetus:Evil Twin Skippy: The difference is, that back in the '90s a couple of guys working out of a garage could afford to hold a patent. Now, you need an industrial force of litigators. And once you have an industrial force of litigators, supporting the 2000th patent is peanuts in price vs. the first patent.

This isn't correct. Patents don't cost any more to hold now than they did in the '90s, beyond some very minor increases in maintenance fees to keep pace with inflation. You certainly don't litigators to hold a patent.Now, to enforce a patent, you need some litigators, and yes, a couple guys in a garage can't really afford to front that cost... if only there were things like law firm contingency fees, or patent brokers, or lawsuit investors, or other such ways to pay for litigation, but since you have to pay every penny up front, I guess a tiny company like i4i can never afford to sue a giant company like Microsoft.

They have turned a tool that was supposed to allow the small time inventor to stand up against the big industrialists into a tool for the industrialists to prevent a small time inventor from operating.

That's not the intent of the patent system at all. It's all about encouraging public disclosure of inventions by eliminating the disincentives that encourage companies to keep trade secrets. And that's the same for small inventors and big industrialists.

At this point in time, who, WHO on Earth would be able to operate in the current environment outside of GE or Lucent or DuPont or Phizor? You could cast a perfectly round gear, and run up against one of their patents for "casting the wheel before applying a topcoat of color."

... and? Who's going to spend half a million dollars to sue a guy making $50k from products he builds in his garage? Patent damages aren't punitive... the most you can get are 100% royalties, and in reality, you're going to be closer to 1%. Is DuPont really going to send a lawyer after you for $500? And, at that point, wouldn't you just pay it for a full license, knowing that they can't ever come after you again?

There are patents that exist that take a concept from the 19th century and simply add "ON COMPUTERS!"

No, there aren't. Bet you can't find a single one. I'll bet a month of TF that you can't find an independent claim in a patent that says "1. A method for doing [known process], comprising: [doing known process] ON COMPUTERS!"6 months.A year.How much are you willing to spend to keep spreading this FUD?

The entire software patent system needs to be dismantled.

Why should one industry be exempt from patentability, even for the most novel and nonobvious invention in the world?

There was a reason we didn't allow it in the past.

Bet you don't know what that reason is, or why it doesn't apply anymore.

There is a reason our dependents will look back on software patents with the same disdain we shed on Papal indulgences.

What you don't realize is that the exact same argument has come up dozens of times in the past - airplanes are invented, and someone says "the entire airplane patent system needs to be dismantled." Television is invented, and someone says "the entire broadcasting patent system needs to be dismantled." Assembly line automation is invented, and someone says "the entire mechanical patent system needs to be dismantled." Why should computers be magically exempt?

I'll take " things that a patent lawyer tells themself to delude themself into thinking that they are useful and needed, not just a festering fecal-encrusted boil on the taint of society" for 200 Alex.

Theaetetusthat actually does describe a physical latch pretty well.[..] However, you're ignoring 95% of the limitations in the claim

From what you've removed, one can sum up those limitations pretty good:"on a computer"

Well, "on a touchscreen".Pardon me: "on a touch sensitive device" or someone could get away with using a notebook's touchpad instead of wiggling the mouse to wake up the notebook or make the screensaver disappear.

tgambitg:Theaetetus: Except that, as you admit, you have to change a bunch of words, remove a bunch of other words, ignore a bunch of limitations in the claim, and eventually, you manage to remove everything that's in the patent... But at that point, it's the same damn thing?

You really are clueless to what everyone is trying to say, aren't you? All that stuff I took out was the 'on the electronic device' stuff. And all of that is software based.

... and? You apparently believe that anything that is "software based" can just be ignored in the patent. It doesn't work that way. You can't simply ignore all the words you don't like.

Copyright the code that does it, but it should never have been eligible for a patent.

You're confusing two different concepts here... You're arguing about patent eligibility of software, but you're framing your argument in terms of obviousness. Those are different requirements. Something has to be novel, nonobvious, and patent eligible to be patentable.There's a reason these are different concepts. By trying to collapse them to a single question, you're actually ignoring a whole bunch of issues, and may mistakenly make the wrong decision about non-patentable subject matter that is nonobvious, such as a new mathematical algorithm.

It literally copies a physical slide lock in digital form. You're getting hung up on the legalese that tells you 'oh this isn't a physical lock, see all this stuff? it means a software lock so it can't be the same as the physical lock.'

A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different. Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.

Theaetetus:Kinek: Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.

So you're going to ignore the fact that it took near the lifetime of the patent, WWI, and the US government taking legal action for the Wright brothers to shut the fark up to get the industry to take off? So, the 12 year period where fark all happened is a positive?

The Voice of Doom:Theaetetusthat actually does describe a physical latch pretty well.[..] However, you're ignoring 95% of the limitations in the claim

From what you've removed, one can sum up those limitations pretty good:

But you can't sum up limitations. Any time you do, you're paraphrasing. When you paraphrase, by definition, you're simplifying. And if you simplify a patent claim so that it's easily understood, by definition, you're going to describe it known, obvious terms. For example, you can paraphrase a car as a horseless carriage, and never have to think about engines and transmissions and differential gears, and the result looks obvious - horses are known, carriages are known, shiat, automobiles are obvious.

So, yes, if you ignore all of the language in the patent and instead paraphrase the concept with known, obvious terms, you're going to miss the point of the patent and instead describe something obvious.

Kinek:Theaetetus: Kinek: Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.

So you're going to ignore the fact that it took near the lifetime of the patent, WWI, and the US government taking legal action for the Wright brothers to shut the fark up to get the industry to take off? So, the 12 year period where fark all happened is a positive?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that those 12 years were full of tons of new innovations by Curtiss and others. Do you really think the entire patent pool was one patent by the Wright brothers?

Theaetetus:tgambitg: Theaetetus: A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different. Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is different.

There is your example of something that exists, then was patented as "on a computer". Take away the "on a computer part" and it is fundamentally the same as the physical slide lock. As you said, the implementation is "on a computer", which is the key to the patent eligibility.

Theaetetus:Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.

So you're going to ignore the fact that it took near the lifetime of the patent, WWI, and the US government taking legal action for the Wright brothers to shut the fark up to get the industry to take off? So, the 12 year period where fark all happened is a positive?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that those 12 years were full of tons of new innovations by Curtiss and others. Do you really think the entire patent pool was one patent by the Wright brothers?

Except for the obvious fact that there were no goddamned planes working. The wright brothers, with a few patents, managed to stall the entire industry. Go patents.

Theaetetus:Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Yes, airplanes were invented, patented, and didn't do fark-shiat in the US for at least a decade because the Wright brothers proceeded to get all litigious on everybody. That's a great example of how the patent system encourages innovation.

Actually, it is... Curtiss and others did a whole bunch of innovating on their own (because they already had access to the roll control methods in the Wrights' patents), resulting in a bunch of opposing lawsuits that eventually got turned into a patent pool, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. As a result, the industry really took off from the simple powered and unpowered gliders to the amazing flying machines of WWII, in just a decade.

So you're going to ignore the fact that it took near the lifetime of the patent, WWI, and the US government taking legal action for the Wright brothers to shut the fark up to get the industry to take off? So, the 12 year period where fark all happened is a positive?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that those 12 years were full of tons of new innovations by Curtiss and others. Do you really think the entire patent pool was one patent by the Wright brothers?

I think his point is that innovation & actually bringing planes to market would've happened significantly faster if not for the Wright's stonewalling. Maybe I'm wrong. (That said, I'm not nearly familiar enough with the facts to evaluate whether that's true one way or another...)

Theaetetus:Here's the first claim from 8,046,721:1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; andunlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

Do you see "[known method] on a computer/smartphone" there? Maybe you need to look a little closer at slide-to-unlock.

So, they've manage to patent this product's feature (probably because of some verbiage about there being a graphical unlock image as you slide)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&feature=youtu.be#t=4m00s

Theaetetus:A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different.

That's not what they're patenting--they're patenting the concept of a digital lock (hence, the very generic wording of the patent). If I were to change "the way of getting there" by making it vertical or require two fingers instead of one, would you say I have a new patent, or would I be infringing upon their existing one? Keep in mind that using two fingers would generally imply a very different hardware touch screens that can detect two different finger placement (implying very different software implementations).

Patents are about implementations, not general concepts, and here, the implementation is differ ..

Total BS. They're entirely about general concepts, and only using the current implementation as "prior art." Read the recent Apple vs. Samsung summary. They're all about concepts--I guarantee they were not all implemented the exact same way (how could you know, after all, when the code is probably in millions of lines of code?), but the general concepts were the similar to the verbiage of the patents.

FarkGrudge:Theaetetus: Here's the first claim from 8,046,721:1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; andunlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

Do you see "[known method] on a computer/smartphone" there? Maybe you need to look a little closer at slide-to-unlock.

So, they've manage to patent this product's feature (probably because of some verbiage about there being a graphical unlock image as you slide)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&feature=youtu.be#t=4m00s

Theaetetus: A software lock isn't the same as a physical lock. Ignore the legalese for a second - does your physical slide lock have a touch screen? Does it detect a touch at a first location, and does it move an image in response to motion of the touch? No. The result may look the same and the general concept of "unlocking something" may be the same, but the way of getting there is different.

That's not what they're patenting--they're patenting the concept of a digital lock (hence, the very generic wording of the patent). If I were to change "the way of getting there" by making it vertical or require two fingers instead of one, would you say I have a new patent, or would I be infringing upon their existing one? Keep in mind that using two fingers would generally imply a very different hardware touch s ...

I've noticed this before, that patents, even in their claims, are very....vague. Yes, they're specific in some point, but actual implementation is hardly ever mentioned. Which is understandable when you think about the motivations behind the patents now, they want them to be as broad as possible while still being patentable. That way they can cover as much territory as possible.

It's almost like disclosure isn't even the point anymore. You can't build a working program from most of these claims. It's Almost as if patents are being used as some sort of anti-competitive tool. But nobody would ever do that.